Case Digest (G.R. No. 173399)
Facts:
Central Bank Board of Liquidators v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, G.R. No. 173399, February 21, 2017, the Supreme Court En Banc, Sereno, C.J., writing for the Court.Respondent Banco Filipino was authorized to operate as a savings bank by MB Resolution No. 223 on 14 February 1963 and began operations on 9 July 1964. In July 1984 the then Central Bank (CB) placed Banco Filipino under conservatorship by MB Resolution No. 955; on 25 January 1985 the CB issued MB Resolution No. 75 placing Banco Filipino under receivership and ordering its closure and takeover of assets and liabilities. Banco Filipino filed separate suits in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati—Civil Case No. 8108 (annulment of conservatorship), No. 9675 (annulment of receivership), and No. 10183 (annulment of liquidation)—which this Court later ordered consolidated in Branch 136 in G.R. No. 70054.
This Court, in G.R. No. 70054, issued an En Banc Decision on 11 December 1991 nullifying MB Resolution No. 75 and directing the CB to reorganize Banco Filipino; following R.A. No. 7653 (the New Central Bank Act) effective 6 July 1993 the CB was abolished and the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) was created while the Central Bank Board of Liquidators (CB‑BOL) was established to administer and liquidate remaining CB assets and liabilities. Pursuant to the earlier judgment, the BSP reopened Banco Filipino on 1 July 1994.
While the consolidated RTC cases were pending, Banco Filipino on 29 May 1995 moved to admit an Amended/Supplemental Complaint to substitute the CB‑BOL for the defunct CB; the RTC granted that motion on 29 March 1996. On 25 September 2003 Banco Filipino again filed a Motion to Admit a Second Amended/Supplemental Complaint in the consolidated cases (filed in Branch 136), seeking to add the BSP and its Monetary Board (MB) as additional defendants and to recover at least P18.8 billion for alleged acts that arose only after the bank’s 1994 reopening—such as refusal to grant a universal banking license, a purported smear campaign, disqualification of a director, and alleged conspiracies with minority stockholders—claims which Banco Filipino characterized as the BSP’s adoption of CB’s prior repressive policies.
The RTC (Presiding Judge Rebecca R. Mariano) granted the Motion to Admit the Second Amended/Supplemental Complaint by Order dated 27 January 2004; reconsideration was denied on 20 July 2004. The CB‑BOL filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA), CA‑G.R. SP No. 86697, which the CA dismissed on 27 January 2006 and denied reconsideration on 27 June 2006, holding among other points that the old CB continued to exist through CB‑BOL and that the BSP was a transferee pendente lite and successor‑in‑interest, so no new parties were impleaded. The CB‑BOL then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court, challenging the CA’s affirmation of the...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the admission of Banco Filipino’s Second Amended/Supplemental Complaint proper under the rules on amendment and supplementation of pleadings?
- Did the admission of that pleading violate the rules on joinder of parties and ca...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)